Cosmology: Science Vs Religion Essay

In the beginning God created the heavens with the Earth along with man in his own image. For over 1500 years, Christian followers were heavy believers of the bible, seeing it as the primary source for knowledge. Then came the scientific revolution in the 1500s, a movement which challenged the Christian view of the universe. It was a time when people were looking for a new way of thinking about the world. Since then and to this day, there has been several instances in which scientific inquiry and religious belief have collided in their ideologies.

For most people of the modern age, a clear distinction exists between the truth as professed by religious belief, and the truth as professed by scientific observation. While there are many people who are able to hold scientific as well as religious views, they tend to hold one or the other as being supreme. Therefore, a religious person may ascribe themselves to certain scientific theories, but they will always fall back on their religious teachings when they seek the ultimate truth, and vice versa for a person with a strong trust in the sciences. For most of the early history of humans, religion and science mingled freely with one another, and at times even lent evidence to support each other as being true. However, this all changed

Many philosophers have provided their arguments for the existence of God. Their arguments are a priori or a posteriori. A posteriori is based on experience of how the world is. In which the Cosmological view of William L. Rowe comes from. This paper will show how Rowe took the cosmological argument and its principle of sufficient reason and failed to make it an established argument of the existence of God.

The author also supports his beliefs with the Kalam Cosmological Argument. He states, “Whatever began to exist has a cause, the universe began to exist therefore, the universe has a cause.” (Copan & Meister) In the words of Ralph Waldo Emerson, “shallow men believe in luck or in circumstance. Strong men believe in cause and effect.” In support of the cosmological argument, the author states, to suggest that things just pop into being uncaused out of nothing is to quit doing serious metaphysics and resort to magic.” In reading the material, the author highlights how God in all of his wisdom and power set the earth in perfect motion in such a way that the laws are perfectly balanced not only for human life but for coexistence of plants and animals and all living organisms. Furthermore, if not for the right combination of laws then life as we know it would be

Theories have arisen from many different philosophers trying to explain the existence of God; the Cosmological Argument is one such theory. The Cosmological Argument has been changed and reviewed for years; however, the focus has always stayed the same. The universe is a prime example that there is a God. A simple Cosmological argument states that:

Aquinas thinks there has to be something that caused this- a first cause. Lastly, Aquinas tells us the only possible thing that caused all of this is God. In this paper, I will be defending Aquinas’ Cosmological Argument. Aquinas’ first premise is everything, every person, plant, or object, that exist in this universe needs an explanation for why it exist. I believe there is a logical reason for why everything exist and everything that happens has an explanation.

The cosmological argument is, “a family of arguments that seek to demonstrate the existence of a Sufficient Reason or First Cause of the existence of the cosmos.” Historians trace an early version of the cosmological argument to Ibn Sīnā (c. 980–1037), and philosophers commonly differentiate argument variations into three basic categories. The first, the KCA, seeks to establish the First

I can support his other arguments by saying that if there is not a first cause then there cannot be an intermediate and final cause. However, the absence of any such cause can clearly does not resemble to our judgmental observation and from that, we can say that the result must have a stable cause. So analyzing an extra further on Aquina argument, we can understand that there must be a cause for everything. For instance, the existence of turning a phone on. This phone cannot cause it’s appearance to come out of nowhere. This phone cannot cause it to appear without having this phone a creator by someone. In result, there is a phone creator who created the phone and cause it existence, but the phone creator and the phone did not cause their existence. So we can say that something caused their existence and this can build up to assume that everything in existence has a first cause which finalizes to the start of all causes and all things.

Sometimes it can be hard to look at the universe and really appreciate all the complexities which govern it. Which might be due in part to the fact that as a species we have created, improved, and revised countless models of the universe. Often times people will interpret science and religion as being two very different things—which is true to an extent; however, at the foundation of religion and science they are the same, in that they both are merely trying to create a model of the universe; which in effect, helps us develop a better understanding of it. When you compare the difficulty of trying to understand science and religion; religion considerably is far easier to understand and thus people in general can better

A logical argument for God’s existence or nonexistence is the cosmological argument. William Craig says in his book that there are three statements that give the cosmological argument form. Craig concluded that whatever begins to exist has a cause. The Universe began to exist therefore the Universe had a cause. What that cause was, is widely challenged. The argument against the existence of God includes the Big Bang Theory. The Big Bang Model is a broadly accepted theory for the beginning and evolution of our universe. According to NASA, it claims that twelve to fourteen billion years ago, the part of the universe that can be seen today was only a few millimeters across. It has since expanded from this hot dense state into the vast and much cooler cosmos that is inhabited. Remnants of this hot dense matter as the now very cold cosmic microwave background radiation can be seen which still pervades the universe and is visible to microwave detectors as a uniform glow across the entire sky. Those who say that God does not exist use this as their argument to explain how the universe was created. Those who support this theory say that the universe resulted from a big bang and everything that is in existence came from this phenomenon. In talking about the Big Bang Theory, Jeffrey Keen said, “In general, science accepts that both the structure of the universe and the laws of physics were created simultaneously at the beginning of the Big Bang, and have since remained constant

The cosmological argument begins with a general claim about the physical universe e.g. that some events have causes and that there must be a supernatural agent to somehow explain this fact. The argument seems to say that there cannot be an infinite series of causes, they have to stop somewhere. One scholar who supports this idea is St. Thomas Aquinas.

Lecture’s Central Argument: Different societies have viewed cosmology differently over time and this view has evolved due to new ideologies.

In conclusion, through my life experiences of my heart condition of freshman year. Causing me to look for answers. And the rational arguments of Cosmological teaching there has to be a first uncaused. Teleological showing the universe is fine-tuned that chance is not scientifically possible. Finally, the Moral argument and that human's morals are created by a higher being. Because of these reasons, it helped me become a Christian.

The main problem with cosmology science is that it does not hold to a biblical worldview. An unbiblical worldview leads to wrong assumptions on the dates of any subject that is being observed. The other problem cosmological science face is the inability to interact and or test what they are observing. The cosmologist will apply their own interpretation upon any piece of evidence the cosmologist has acquired. Cosmologist’s will use telescopes that are limited to light and travel time in which results in creating the wrong assumptions of distances. By applying interpretations and assumptions on the observed subject results in enormously inflated dates, distances, and sizes of the subject.

The tension between religion and science has existed since the beginning of some of the